aloha, chuck!
thank you for your valuable comments on the rough draft...
one point you made which i wanted to address was
quote
I am concerned that being too proscriptive (e.g. requiring a team to
include six people with specific abilities using different assistive
technologies, one WCAG domain expert, one W3C language domain expert, etc.)
will prevent most volunteer review groups and many governmental or
commercial concerns from getting involved, simply because of the resource
and management implications.
unquote
on the flip side, this is a very good way to get people with technological
skills educated in accessibility, and to get individuals from volunteer
groups and organizations versed in the technology...
there's a vast training ground out there called the web, and if, as you so
rightly point out, we develop a strict methodology and ironclad
accountability mechanisms, it would be possible to train a lot of people
not only how to analyze a site, but how to repair the process that led to
the inaccessibility of the site in the first place... it is exactly what
EO needs: a chance to raise the level of awareness of all concerned as to
what it takes--a combination of awareness, skill, technical competence,
inventiveness, and judgement--to make sites accessible in the quote real
world unquote... and, in this effort, the past work of EO (such as the
curriculum) will be indispensable,
gregory
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNTABILITY, n. The mother of caution.
-- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net>
Camera Obscura <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html>
VICUG NYC <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>
Read 'Em & Speak <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------